On 13/06/15 06:36, Walter Landry wrote:
Ángel González wrote:
On 12/06/15 23:22, Walter Landry wrote:
I would strongly disagree here. Requiring documentation of any sort
in addition to the source code is a big step. This is not a minor
thing.
I don't think requiring that some documentation
On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 22:45:54 +0100 Simon McVittie wrote:
> On 13/06/15 15:45, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > As also noted by Walter Landry, there's a crucial difference w.r.t.
> > Apache v2: the latter license requires to preserve attribution notices
> > within "NOTICE" files; the AFL v3.0 requires in
On 13/06/15 15:45, Francesco Poli wrote:
> As also noted by Walter Landry, there's a crucial difference w.r.t.
> Apache v2: the latter license requires to preserve attribution notices
> within "NOTICE" files; the AFL v3.0 requires instead to preserve *any*
> descriptive text identified as an "Attri
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:41:07 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:48:19PM +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
> > Hello debian-legal regulars,
> > I would need to ask your consensus opinion on the non-freeness of the
> > Academic Free License ("AFL") v3.0.
>
> Hi Francesco,
>
> I
Ángel González wrote:
> On 12/06/15 23:22, Walter Landry wrote:
>> Charles Plessy wrote:
>>> Here are a few comments about the license.
>>>
>>> - point 3) is poorly worded, but assuming it is well-intented, it is
>>> - Free.
>> I would strongly disagree here. Requiring documentation of any s
On 12/06/15 23:22, Walter Landry wrote:
Charles Plessy wrote:
Here are a few comments about the license.
- point 3) is poorly worded, but assuming it is well-intented, it is Free.
I would strongly disagree here. Requiring documentation of any sort
in addition to the source code is a big st
Charles Plessy wrote:
> Here are a few comments about the license.
>
> - point 3) is poorly worded, but assuming it is well-intented, it is Free.
I would strongly disagree here. Requiring documentation of any sort
in addition to the source code is a big step. This is not a minor
thing.
> -
Le Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:48:19PM +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
> Hello debian-legal regulars,
> I would need to ask your consensus opinion on the non-freeness of the
> Academic Free License ("AFL") v3.0.
Hi Francesco,
I think that there is a broad consensus to accept the AFL as Free license,
Hello debian-legal regulars,
I would need to ask your consensus opinion on the non-freeness of the
Academic Free License ("AFL") v3.0.
My personal conclusion is that this license includes non-free
restrictions and is also problematic with respect to Debian mirror
infrastructure.
My own analysis [1
9 matches
Mail list logo
